The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1887-07-20
THE FARM BUDGET
The Law and Adullsraied Mlk-Whits Bat
tnflss-PCtato SIugs on tomatoes.
Canning Fruits = Cutting Oats - Feeding
meat-CoIts-Calves'M anuring-FIax-
dressing Machine-HousehoId Hints.
the Law and aduiderated Wink.

Two decisions have recently been rea-
dered by the court of appeals of New York
in cases brought under the act of 1885 ito
prevent deception in the sale of dairy pro-
duets and to preserve the public health
The first case, says the Utica Herald. was
that of the people against Hanford West.
tn. defendant lives in Erie County, aud
was accused of the crime of watering milk
and bringing it to a cheese factory for use
there. 1t would seem that his counsel did
not deny the offense, bat set up IN defense
q claim that the statute of the Legislature
making such an act indictable and crimi-
nal was not constitutional. The court in
its decision takes the ground that "a legis-
lative act is presumably valid, and who
ever questions its validity must be able
10 point 10 some Limitation or
the Constitution of the State or the nited
States which it violates, before its opera
ton can be stayed or the Court be called
upon TO pronounce IL void" An act that
may be entirely innocent, except morally,
before the passage of law, is rendered
criminal by tie existence of the Law, and
tse statutes contain very many instances
of acts prohibited, the criminslity Of
which consists solely in the fact that they
are prohibited, and not a. all in their in
fTiBsic quality" Thus the court fully
establishes the power of the Legislature to
pass such laws IS il deems proper for the
protection Of the public. But it goes even
further than this. 1t is not necessary that
the person who delivers watered milk at a
factory should do SO with fcaudu lent in
fent IN order to bring him within the &C
ton Of the law. 1T puts upon the person
bringing or supplying milk to butter or
cheese mandatory the risk of ascertain
ing that the milk is pure"
This is the principal specially involved in
the second decisiOn-that OF The People VS..
Charles KibIer. The appellant was conyic-
ted for selling adulIeIated milk under the
came law. kibler alleged IN defense that
he was not allowed to show an absence OF
criminal intent. There was no question
abont the fact. The court of appeals, in
its decision, says: "As the law stands,
knowledge or intention forms no element of
the offeDse. The act alone, irrespective OF
its motive, constitutes the crime" Farther
on, the court explains this position. at
is notorious that the adulteratfon of food
has grown TO proportions 50 enormous as to
menace the health and safety of toe PEG.
pie. Ingenuity keeps pace with greed, and
the careless and needless consumers are Elk
posed TO increasing perils. TO
redress such evils is plain
duty. bat difficult task. Experience has
taught the lesson that repressive measures
which depend for their efficiency upol
proof of the dealers knowledge, aud OF
his intent to deceive AID defraud, ara OF
little use, and rarely accomplish their
purpose" For this reason ii Is NECESSARY
that the responsibility of knowing ALSO
lutely that his milk is pure is thrown
upon the shoulders of every farmer who
delivers milk to factory, and every milk
dealer who sells milk to customers in town
OF city. Even il an employe should water
the milk without the knowledge OF the
proprietor, the latter would be responsible
all the same These questions have nov
run their course through all the courts
and the highest court in the state has
made the decisions we have pointed on
above. 1t bebooves farmers to keep /
sharp lookout over their workmen.